Amos 7:1–17

7:1–3 The first two visions in this chapter begin with the introductory phrase “This is what the Lord GOD showed me” (vv. 1, 4). The word translated “Lord” is a title used for a sovereign or ruler, and the word for “GOD” is his proper name (Yahweh); together, they highlight his sovereign position and rule: he is Lord Yahweh.

The vision he shows Amos is not something happening naturally at the time but is a future event of his own making. The participle indicating that God is “forming the locusts” evokes his role as Creator, highlighted also in the doxology of 4:13 (the same Hebrew root for “to form” is present in both passages). The Lord creates the locusts (i.e., the judgment) that will soon overtake the land (cf. Deut. 28:42; Joel 1:4–20). The creation of the locusts is specifically timed to fall around April, in the Israelite growing season. This is just before the “latter growth” (Amos 7:1). The first growth, “the king’s mowings,” was for the monarchy, providing the royal household with grain for food and hay for livestock. This indicates that the king has gotten his due, but the peasant farmers and the rest of the land will suffer immensely because of the locust plague.

When Amos sees the destruction the locusts bring in the vision, he cries out to the sovereign Lord, invoking his covenant name and imploring him, “Please forgive!” (v. 2). The Hebrew construction conveys earnestness, as Amos is clearly distraught over what he has seen, and his compassion for the people rises to the foreground: “How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” In a Moses-like manner (cf. Exodus 32–33), Amos intercedes on behalf of the people, asking the Lord to show them forgiveness and not bring about something that would certainly crush them.

It is important to note that Amos’s compassion appears to be toward the farmers and common people of Israel. The leadership will not initially suffer from the locust plague (although they will in the long run, being as theirs is a primarily agricultural economy). Amos laments on behalf of the peasants. In doing so, he refers to Israel as “Jacob,” the patriarch to whom God reiterated his covenant (Gen. 28:13–16). It is as though the prophet appeals to the Lord’s covenant love toward the forefathers as the basis for forgiveness now.

The intercession works, and the Lord relents from this judgment, saying, “It shall not be” (Amos 7:3). He chooses not to bring about the punishment portrayed to Amos. The statement that God “relented” describes the Lord in very human terms. Such “anthropomorphisms” occur frequently in the Bible as a way of making God’s infinite character understandable to finite human beings. In this case, to say that God has “relented” is to say that he will pursue a different action than the one he has announced, and will do so in response to his prophet’s prayer (cf. also Ex. 32:11–14). This does not in any way impugn the doctrine of the immutability of God (Mal. 3:6). It simply communicates the manner in which God relates to his people. He warns, forgives, judges, etc., based on the response of human beings. All of these things take place under his sovereign decrees and providence, which are often a mystery to us. But it is a wonderful truth that the Lord hears the pleas of his people and compassionately responds.

7:4–6 The second vision follows the same pattern as the first: introduction, vision of judgment, Amos’s intercession, the Lord’s relenting. In this case, the announced judgment is more terrifying than the first, as the Lord calls for a “judgment by fire” to devour “the great deep” and consume the “land” (lit., “portion”) of Israel (v. 4). The punishment of devouring fire is a recurring theme in the book of Amos (1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5; 5:6), but here the severity of the penalty is especially strong. The word for “great deep” (tehom) in the OT refers to the sea in various ways: the primeval ocean (Gen. 1:2), the abyss (Job 38:16), subterranean waters (Gen. 7:11), and the sea (Ex. 15:5). Taken together with mention of “the land,” the picture is of a comprehensive consumption of the created order, particularly the “portion” of Israel (cf. 2 Pet. 3:10).

Note the Lord’s prophetic statement regarding Israel’s future unfaithfulness in Deuteronomy 32:22: “A fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.” A similar horror leads Amos to intercede on behalf of the nation a second time. This intercession has the same earnestness as that in Amos 7:2, but here the request is not to “forgive” but to “cease.” Amos appears to be so overwhelmed that he can only cry to God, “Stop, please!” The compassion of the prophet comes forth again: “How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” Mercifully, the Lord hears Amos’s intercession and chooses to relent concerning this calamity: “This also shall not be” (v. 6).

7:7–9 The third vision and response do not contain an intercession by the prophet or a relenting from the Lord, signifying the certainty of fulfillment. Amos sees the Lord “standing beside a wall built with a plumb line, with a plumb line in his hand” (v. 7). The exact form of the Lord’s appearance goes unmentioned; the main focus of this picture is on what the Lord is holding. The word translated “plumb line” is rare, appearing only here in the OT. This has led to much discussion regarding its meaning.¹ In context, however, the term indeed seems best translated as “plumb line.”² Amos sees a wall constructed with the use of a plumb line—it was initially built level and straight. The Lord now stands next to the wall with a plumb line in his hand to measure its present condition.

This becomes clear in verse 8, where the Lord explains that he is measuring the condition of Israel—and the implication is that they have become totally misaligned. Even though he established his covenant with the nation and gave them his law, they have turned from him and become corrupt. The Lord finds that Israel is crooked and cannot be fixed. The remedy, or rather the consequence, is to destroy it. He communicates this with another allusion to the Passover (v. 8; cf. comment on 5:16–17), stating that he “will never again pass by [i.e., over] them” as he did in Egypt; instead he will destroy their “high places” and “sanctuaries” (7:9). “High places” were shrines on hilltops at which the people engaged in syncretistic worship, while “sanctuaries” were temples in the cities, like those in Bethel and Dan. God will reduce their religious sites to rubble (cf. Lev. 26:30–31).

In addition, the monarchic dynasty of Jeroboam II will fall “with the sword” (cf. 2 Kings 15:8–10). This is the only reference in the book to Jeroboam II with regard to judgment, but it prepares the reader for the confrontation between Amaziah and the prophet in the immediately following verses (Amos 7:10–17).

7:10–13 The narrative of verses 10–17 contains an account of Amos’s confrontation with Amaziah the priest. Even though this account is written from the third-person point of view, it seems best to understand it as autobiographical. As the “priest of Bethel,” Amaziah was likely the high priest there, as he apparently held a position of prominence in that religiopolitical environment. He “sent” word to King Jeroboam regarding the prophecy of Amos, revealing his political allegiance to the monarchy and his desire to bring an end to the prophet’s mischief (v. 10). The message sent to the king shows that Amaziah knew the prophecy of Amos, especially regarding God’s judgment against the house of Jeroboam (v. 13).

However, Amaziah’s words exhibit manipulative intent. He charges the prophet with conspiring against the king within his own kingdom (“in the midst of the house of Israel”). The word translated “conspired” has the sense of plotting against someone. In this context, it is clearly political. Additionally, by saying that the “land” cannot “bear” Amos’s words, Amaziah communicates that the economic and political stability of Israel is under threat. This rabble-rousing “seer” is a menace to society.

The priest accuses Amos of scheming against the king, quoting the prophet as saying that “Jeroboam shall die by the sword” (v. 11). Technically, the earlier prophecy only stated that “the house of Jeroboam” would face “the sword” (v. 9). Nothing was directed toward the king himself, but the priest alters Amos’s words to suit his own political ends. And, while Amaziah’s summary of the prophet’s message of Israel’s coming exile from the “land” more accurately reflects the truth, the conveying of this information to Jeroboam comes from the priest’s own political motivations. This is seen in Amaziah’s command to Amos to leave Israel (v. 12). He addresses Amos as “seer,” which is not necessarily a derogatory term. Amos has seen visions (vv. 1–9), and other prophets are given this title as well (1 Sam. 9:9).

However, by telling Amos to go back to Judah, “eat bread there,” “prophesy there,” and “never again prophesy at Bethel” (Amos 7:12–13), Amaziah impugns the motivations of the prophet. The priest insinuates that Amos is a careerist prophet who prophesies in order to make a living (as becomes clearer in Amos’s response, in vv. 14–15). Here, Amaziah tells him to go back to his own land (Judah) to make his living. There is no mention as to whether this command comes on the authority of King Jeroboam, but the priest obviously sees himself as a protector of both “church and state” (“it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom”).

7:14–17 In Hebrew, the beginning of Amos’s response is very tersely worded, leading to different understandings of the particulars of what he is saying. In terms of the general point, however, it seems best to understand Amos’s words in the context of Amaziah’s insinuation that he is a career prophet, i.e., a prophet for hire. He is not “a prophet” in the sense of being a prophet paid to prophesy good or ill, nor is he “a prophet’s son,” carrying on the family business. He is an actual prophet called by God.

Amos shows this by noting his agricultural background as “a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs.” This is underscored by the superscription at the beginning of the book, where he is called “a shepherd” (1:1). In short, he is not among the professional prophets of Israel or Judah. He disassociates himself further from this category by highlighting God’s election of him to this ministry: the Lord “took me from following the flock” (7:15). The Lord commanded him, “Go, prophesy to my people Israel.” It was not Amos’s choice to engage in this prophetic endeavor. The covenant Lord chose him and has given him authority to speak. Therefore, Amos will not flee from Amaziah’s opposition.

Amos follows this self-vindication with a personal message from the Lord to Amaziah (vv. 16–17). The priest has not merely challenged Amos; he has challenged the Lord himself. By rejecting the prophet and his message (v. 16), the priest reveals his rejection of God and his authority. “Therefore” God will judge him and his household, and the judgment is extensive (v. 17). Without a husband, his wife will have to make her living as a prostitute, which is a degrading and unthinkable fall for the wife of the prominent high priest at Bethel. His sons and daughters “shall fall by the sword” (cf. v. 9), and his land will be divided up. He himself will “die in an unclean land,” that is, outside the land of Israel, and the nation itself will also go into exile. Rejecting God’s word always leads to destruction, no matter how prominent one’s position or political connections.